[MPWG] eat the weeds

Thu Feb 3 14:30:53 CST 2005

Bob, You don't sound far off what I would say just that finding uses for 
these plants would be the best thing by far. You are correct in that we have 
something like a nazi group wanting to simply elliminate anything that has 
not been given a green card for this country. The language used is a 
punitive kind of verbage not unlike the nazi purification program for 
genetics. I here they are toxic to other plants. Most plants do have some 
sort of mechanism to protect their own space. I here they invade. Plants 
don't invade, they simply seize opportunity for growing space left by some 
disturbance usually human. I here they are allien. I would contend that 
there are no alliens on this planet human or plant. These terms are used to 
stirr up people who learned conservation by watching the road runner on 
saturday morning cartoons. It is simple when the mission does not require 
understanding what is happening but just killing weeds. One common problem 
is that the problem with the weeds is often not their presence but what they 
say about their environment. You then begin to see how just killing weeds 
may actually make your weed problem worse.
I could say I have a problem with ragwort because it is dominating certain 
parts of my forest. However I know it is thriving because some trees were 
removed years ago giving it the right growing conditions and that in time it 
will fade. I weed it off of my ginseng every spring but I am not about to 
throw out the baby with the bath water unless I am prevented from being able 
to sell my ginseng by the same kind of thinking. Fred

>From: Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu>
>To: "Center for Sustainable Resources" <sustainableresources at hotmail.com>
>CC: MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>Subject: RE: [MPWG] eat the weeds
>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:19:49 -0500
>
>Hi Fred
>In the big picture I agree with you completely, humans in North American 
>are pretty invasive weeds themselves! As you know nature abhors a vacuum 
>and plants will fill it quickly. Human or natural disturbances create the 
>opportunities. I think Ben Franklin defined a weed as "a plant whose 
>virtues have yet to be discovered"!  In the short term "human centric" 
>picture however, I have to disagree. We have always chosen plants we find 
>useful regardless of their origin. 90% of our US food supply is derived 
>from "exotic" plants and animals, including such "American" staples as 
>sweet apples and beef cattle. When we manipulate an environment for our own 
>purposes, WE decide what are weeds and what are not.  Corn is a highly 
>edible plant but "volunteer" corn growing in a soybean field is a weed. 
>Kudzu was first introduced as both an erosion control plant and a food crop 
>for cattle. It is actually highly nutritious. I don't necessarily believe 
>that "native" is superior to "exotic". Indeed, I find that a rather fascist 
>concept. As the self appointed steward of the land I temporarily own I 
>decide what plants I want growing on it. Plants that I consider undesirable 
>will be removed, including my native poison ivy. There is often a 
>significant lag time between when a plant or for that matter an insect pest 
>is introduced into a new area and when it actually become naturalized. 
>Gypsy moths and the hemlock wooly adelgid in Asia do not cause the massive 
>defoliation and havoc they wreck in the Northeastern U.S. In time, they 
>will cease to cause such havoc but for my lifetime and probably my 
>children's lifetime, they will.  Humans have manipulated ecosystems for 
>their own purposes since fire was domesticated.  Eliminating invasive 
>plants from a landscape is not much different than weeding your vegetable 
>garden. So what does this have to do with medicinal plants? (I can hear 
>Patricia yawning right about now) Actually, quite a lot. If a plant in 
>India is identified as medicinal but has the potential to grow like Kudzu, 
>I don't want my neighbor planting it next to my property regardless of its 
>virtues.
>Bob
>
>is At 04:21 PM 2/2/2005 -0900, you wrote:
>>Bob, I have to disagree with with your statement about concern over using 
>>unwanted plants that you refer to as "invasive". Actually that is what 
>>needs to happen and will eventually happen with all of these plants at 
>>some point. They will become useful. If you go back far enough eliminating 
>>plants viewed as invasive at some point there would be no plants in north 
>>america. Lets not discriminate also. We need to get rid of apples, brown 
>>trout, tomatoes, cabbage, and on and on. What we are really talking about 
>>is a political system applied to nature that puts political timelines on 
>>species which have always moved about with or without mans help. When 
>>plants first arrive on new land they become dense monocultures and can at 
>>first cause havic. Eventually they come under control and just add to the 
>>biodiversity. If you really think about it you will realize that is true. 
>>Nature finds ways to bring things back into line.
>>As a knifemaker I use all sorts of materials and my favorite is multiflora 
>>rose. This past weekend I sold three hunting knives with multiflora grips. 
>>It is a truly beautiful wood with exotic grain and it is very hard. I am 
>>running out on this farm between this use and the fact that both cattle 
>>and goats eat it. It is very high in protein as a forage. The deer like it 
>>also. It helps as successional plants in old fields returning to forest 
>>and then it gets shaded out as the canopy develops. These do gooders will 
>>do far more harm and waste a lot of time and money killing such plants 
>>than any harm it could ever cause. The problem with the presence of too 
>>many of any kind of plant has more to do with poor land management than 
>>anything.  As a certified educator of Holistic Resource Management certain 
>>principles apply that are unchanged over the eons. The way these plants 
>>behave is nothing new. Fred Hays
>>
>>>From: Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu>
>>>To: MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>Subject: [MPWG] eat the weeds
>>>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:40:45 -0500
>>>
>>>I think eating weeds is a good idea, many of them are far more nutritious 
>>>than their cultivated counterparts, i.e. dandelion. I will send her lots 
>>>of recipes from an Extension bulletin I wrote in 1977.  I am not so sure 
>>>publishing recipes for invasive plants is a good idea. The reason we have 
>>>some of these plants today is because they were purposely introduced as 
>>>food crops for us or cattle, i.e., Kudzu. As recently as last year I saw 
>>>garlic mustard seed for sale in a catalogue as an edible green.
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>MPWG mailing list
>>>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to 
>>>MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org with the word "unsubscribe" in 
>>>the subject line.
>>>                                                       Disclaimer
>>>                                                      Any advice given on 
>>>this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. reflects ONLY the 
>>>opinion of the individual who posts the message. The information 
>>>contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for 
>>>professional medical advice relative to your specific medical condition 
>>>or question. All medical and other healthcare information that is 
>>>discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the individual 
>>>reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do not reflect 
>>>any official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.
>>
>